GOP Nominee

[PanzerJaeger]

Clearly, you do not understand how the BBC is run. The BBC is established by statute, but it is independantly run and payed for by the license fee. Your government is far more involved with your news media bacuse the two are in each other's pockets.

If the BBC is a good thing and America's news media is a squalid cesspit, both things you have acknowledged, then you should copy the BBC - whole cloth if necessary. To do otherwise for some abstract and false feeling that it is "un American" is stupidity of the highest order, same goes for the NHS.

We saw what your unensured look like on our TV's (we pay the license fee and get Chanel 4), my father's response was litterally "my God, it's like a third world country."

You have Third World healthcare and news organisations about as reputable of those controlled by Vladamir Putin.

I think you should do something about that, because the "market" hasn't worked and it never will for news because people will only pay for what they want to hear.

Heh, that is quite a lot of condescension based on relatively little source material. If we're looking for models to improve our own systems, neither the BBC nor the NHS would be at the top of the list, as both come with significant pitfalls of their own. Not to mention the fact that we already have a BBC for all intents and purposes in NPR, which comes with essentially the same strengths, weaknesses, and biases that accompany the BBC in Britain.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Heh, that is quite a lot of condescension based on relatively little source material. If we're looking for models to improve our own systems, neither the BBC nor the NHS would be at the top of the list, as both come with significant pitfalls of their own. Not to mention the fact that we already have a BBC for all intents and purposes in NPR, which comes with essentially the same strengths, weaknesses, and biases that accompany the BBC in Britain.

The NHS provides universal cover for half the cost of the US system - there are other alternatives, but the tell is that you can have private insurrence in the UK but most people don't bother.

It is an indesputable fact that on the basic test of providing healthcare the NHS succeeds and the convoluted US system often doesn't.

NPR?

NPR is not like the BBC, it is payed for by a mixture of federal taxes and private funding, neither sources used by the BBC, and it just produces news and "cultural programming, the BBC produces the full suite of content.

So, really, you have even less information than I do.

[CountArach]

If universal = The population of the country and half the cost is literal, then isn't our healthcare system more effective? Not being argumentative, but it seems like the massive population difference is something to take into account.

I assume he means half the cost per head, and I also assume he wasn't being literal.

[Lemur]

I assume he means half the cost per head, and I also assume he wasn't being literal.

Actually, I think he understated the case, although it's hard to make head-to-head comparisons, given that different benefits apply. Still and all, a recent, rough comparison.



I think anyone who has run the numbers can see that the US system involves the most cash for (at best) an average outcome.

[gaelic cowboy]

Doctor numbers are differ though I wonder if it is something to do with being able to charge or something whereas all the other stuff is seen as a cost.

Well that's pretty damning, isn't it?

Especially seeing as you wouldnt say the UK has some fabled mediterranean diet, they drink, smoke eat too much nor do they exercise blah blah and still the life expectancy is two years better with less wonga spent.

[Lemur]

Well that's pretty damning, isn't it?

Short version of my take: Single-payer healthcare has its ups and downs, but it appears to be the cheapest method for covering the population.

A purely market-based system of healthcare may be cheaper, depending on which economic theories you choose to believe, but it has never been tried on a national scale in a developed country. (I would be a lot more confident in the Republicans who advocate a pure market system if they could point to a single real-world example. Empiricism FTW.)

Here in the USA we've managed to take the worst aspects of single-payer and fuse them to the worst aspects of a broken market system, yielding the most expensive healthcare on Earth. Yay us.

The only upside to our system is that if you have a great deal of wealth (in the form of gold-plated insurance or good old cash), some low-percentage diseases and conditions can be treated at a much higher level of competence than in any single-payer system. So if you've got some weird variant of lymphoma, and your pockets are functionally bottomless, you can buy better treatment here.

And that's about it.

[Strike For The South]

Its all a plot by Obama to make us live longer so the terrorists have a better chance to kill us

[Lemur]

Getting back on topic, looks to me like Santorum must have some Fallout and/or Walking Dead fans on staff:

[PanzerJaeger]

The NHS provides universal cover for half the cost of the US system - there are other alternatives, but the tell is that you can have private insurrence in the UK but most people don't bother.

It is an indesputable fact that on the basic test of providing healthcare the NHS succeeds and the convoluted US system often doesn't.

I am aware of the relative strengths (cost, coverage) and weaknesses (care) of the NHS. Why would we want to replace our own mediocre system with another mediocre system? As I said, there are much better models to choose from.

NPR?

NPR is not like the BBC, it is payed for by a mixture of federal taxes and private funding, neither sources used by the BBC, and it just produces news and "cultural programming, the BBC produces the full suite of content.

You mean like Top Gear and that wonderfully objective exposé posted above? I thought the discussion was about our how awful our news was in comparison. NPR is remarkably similar in its format and reporting to the BBC, although it is a bit less sensationalist.

So, really, you have even less information than I do.

Well that could be true as I don't have access to the full suite of wonderful BBC programming to tell me what to think.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well that's pretty damning, isn't it?

It is why I keep banging on about it.

It is litterally because I love you guys, but I would never visit your country so long as I am this poor and your healthcare is that expensive.

Short version of my take: Single-payer healthcare has its ups and downs, but it appears to be the cheapest method for covering the population.

A purely market-based system of healthcare may be cheaper, depending on which economic theories you choose to believe, but it has never been tried on a national scale in a developed country. (I would be a lot more confident in the Republicans who advocate a pure market system if they could point to a single real-world example. Empiricism FTW.)

Here in the USA we've managed to take the worst aspects of single-payer and fuse them to the worst aspects of a broken market system, yielding the most expensive healthcare on Earth. Yay us.

The only upside to our system is that if you have a great deal of wealth (in the form of gold-plated insurance or good old cash), some low-percentage diseases and conditions can be treated at a much higher level of competence than in any single-payer system. So if you've got some weird variant of lymphoma, and your pockets are functionally bottomless, you can buy better treatment here.

And that's about it.

Yes, but we have private in the UK, it's not quite as swishy but if you're that wealthy over here you just hop over the pond anyway. Your medical research is top notch, places like the Mayo clinic save lives the world over, but there isn't any trickle down if you don't have any money.

I am aware of the relative strengths (cost, coverage) and weaknesses (care) of the NHS. Why would we want to replace our own mediocre system with another mediocre system? As I said, there are much better models to choose from.

In the last four years both my parents and my two surviving grandparents had life saving surgery (except for my Grandmother, she only had breast cancer), none of them complained about the care - only the food. Without the NHS my Grandmother would be dead (no money for cancer drugs) my Grandfather would be dead (no insurrence company would pay to put a stent in a 99 year old man's heart) my father might be dead (he had a ruptured apendix, in the US he might not have gone to the doctor for a bad bellyache) my mother would have survived (head trauma from falling from a horse) but we'd still be paying the ICU bill.

All for less than half what your country spends, less even than what your government spends.

Don't give me "one medicocr system for another" rubbish, the NHS saves everyone's lives, no matter their economic circumstances, it may be a bit ragged on the edges but the core life-saving work gets done, and done well.

Your system gives you a nice room and polite staff who know their jobs, but only if you pay.

You mean like Top Gear and that wonderfully objective exposé posted above? I thought the discussion was about our how awful our news was in comparison. NPR is remarkably similar in its format and reporting to the BBC, although it is a bit less sensationalist.

Top Gear is a national joke (in the sense that it is made to make us laugh) and that Panarama showed something I've never seen a mainstream news program on a major chanel in the Us show, or even comment on.

Well that could be true as I don't have access to the full suite of wonderful BBC programming to tell me what to think.

The people who run the BBC are a bunch of limp lefties, but they lose their jobs if they falsify facts.

[Tellos Athenaios]

You mean like Top Gear and that wonderfully objective exposé posted above? I thought the discussion was about our how awful our news was in comparison. NPR is remarkably similar in its format and reporting to the BBC, although it is a bit less sensationalist.

You're not still smarting about the time they went to Alabama, are you? Top Gear is just a heavily scripted entertainment show, though in the Alabama case I don't think it was the BBC who shot the "welcome to Alabama" sign...

[Centurion1]

Right now Russia is of greater threat mostly because as PVC said regarding the views of those nations regarding the rest of the world. Also I see China as a paper tiger of sorts with revolution approaching as they create a stronger middle class and drift more towards capitalism.

[Hax]

I attended a lecture about that issue, I don't think the people in China are aiming towards a revolution. But then again, we said the same thing about the Arab world. Who knows?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Romney managed to get Pravda to endorse Barack Obama by saying what he said, so it was a smart move.